iamshack

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 11:22 AM) Technically I'm sure any accountant you ask will tell you it was related to services performed and thus income. However, could you get away with it, probably a pretty good chance if it was never reported anywhere. However, I always say better safe then sorry when it comes to the IRS. Couldn't he always just say it slipped his mind entirely?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 10:21 AM) A significant number of Americans don't live in a house that they own and healthcare costs are still a huge financial burden. Plus cars break down and don't last 20-30 years without extensive maintenance. Are you really advocating for a society were most seniors have to scrape by on $1200 a month? Again, this is all going to be an unintended consequence of advances in medicine. While the medical industry has found ways to extend the lives of our seniors, our infrastructures our not prepared for this.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 08:08 AM) I suspect I'll be mocked here for expressing my views about sin and abortion. That doesn't really bother me, but I'd like to make something clear about sin. And who knows, maybe if people can think reasonably about it, interesting discussion will ensue. I'm reminded of a discussion I had a long time ago with StrangeSox, where I mentioned that I would not want a gay son. Would I love him any less? Of course not. But I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to not want a son to face any additional challenges. As far as I'm concerned, only a serious activist would want that, and likely at the expense of his own child. I think it's worth noting that want and accept are two very different things. The reaction, not surprisingly, was that I was a bigot. So, here's the part where I disagree with a lot of Christians. I don't judge them, I don't think they're awful bigots, I just think they got this one incorrect. Homosexuality is no greater a sin than any other. I don't get the focus here. I don't understand why some people in my own faith focus on this one sin to the exclusion of so many others. Homosexuality is a sin. Fornication, which I once took part in to my everlasting shame, is a sin. Anger, which I still take part in and must still confess for, is a sin. We ALL sin in one way or another. A homosexual is no more damned for that than I am for yelling at poor drivers on the highway. As Catholics, we learn that there is exactly one mortal sin. One sin, and one alone, from which you cannot be forgiven. That is the continuing denial of the Holy Spirit. I did that once. In college, I turned my back on God. I was adamantly anti-religious. I don't know if I was an atheist, per se. That would be too generous to my state of mind. I was confused. I was angry at judgmentalism, and instead of finding a denomination that I liked, I took it out on God. I found my way back and was baptized into the Anglican Communion last year. I have confessed my sins and my blasphemy, and I am confident that God has forgiven me. He truly does forgive all sins. The only one that cannot be forgiven is unrepentant blasphemy. If you are a blasphemer, as I was, and you repent, as I did, He casts no aspersions upon you. And this is possible all because He gave His only Son to die on the Cross. So if you go around, and pull a Fred Phelps (yes, Fred's REALLY loony but I wanted a high profile name to make this point), and exclaim with great glee, that the gays are burning in Hell and worse...not only are you committing a sin with your judgments, but you cheapening the sacrifice of God's Son, the focal point of our entire faith, by claiming that there is something that His death could not redeem. We all sin, without exception, and we are all capable of being forgiven. Homosexuality is forgiveable, fornication is forgivable, getting an abortion is forgivable and being an abortionist is forgivable. Hans Frank was a Nazi politician and one of Hitler's cabinet members. Obviously, he was in a position where he had great infuence on the execution of the Holocaust. As such, he was tried at Nuremberg and sentenced to death. Before he was hanged on 16 Oct 1946, he became a devout Catholic. Now, I don't know if he was sincere; that is between him and God. But if he was, I know he was forgiven and is living in Heaven. Maybe that disturbs some of you. Oh well. It is what it is. I'm just bothered that some Christians infuse the message with unnecessary hate and scare off newcomers who are interested but don't want to believe in something they see as hateful. It's especially personal to me because that's what happened to me once. I just wanted to share my own thoughts on that particular topic. I'm not trying to save or convert anyone. I just want this thing cleared up so that people are able to see the loving message of Christianity and not any other. It's not a hate group. Well this is all a belief system. In a belief system that is entirely based on faith, it's somewhat difficult to establish hard-line rules because none of these things can be traced back to facts...which allows for huge ranges in interpretation of how that belief system should work. What you choose to believe is what you choose to believe, and I don't really understand how you can force that on another person or expect them to agree with you.

My parents are going to be f***ed, because financially, they are idiots... Guess who will be supporting their asses?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 08:46 AM) Looks like it's a done deal. She'll definitely be missed at REI as she was HIGHLY respected. Pretty cool, Sqwert...maybe she will bring you to the other Washington with her

This is just a new way to be unproductive in today's work environment as opposed to the old ways before the internet came along...at least now we're not all drinking

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 09:09 AM) If you don't get a 1099, can you consider the money you received a gift? Anyone have this issue come up? The scenario: I worked a case for my firm that had been referred to us by another firm. The two firms split the cut of the settlement proceeds that I was able to get. As a "thank you," the other firm gave me a portion of their cut. I never received a 1099 and it's less than the gift tax amount of $13k. Can I consider this a non-taxable gift? Technically I wasn't working for them, I was working for my firm. He just happened to get a referral fee, and was nice enough to give me a thank you portion. How was the money disbursed to you?

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 09:31 AM) I hit the point of no return last night. She invited me over and made a delicious dinner. We had dessert. We had wine. The rest is pretty self explanatory. I Dunn f***ed up now. Oh man...you are a dirty bastard

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 06:53 PM) MLB Transactionist ‏@MLBTransactions BALTIMORE ORIOLES: Claimed infielder Russ Canzler off waivers from the New York Yankees; designated catcher Luis Martinez for assignment. Jordan Bastian ‏@MLBastian 1B Russ Canzler has been claimed off waiversby Baltimore, via Yankees, via Indians, via Blue Jays, via Indians. Is this the dude who destroyed us at the end of last season?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 07:10 PM) Posters either violate the rules or they don't. Why do posters who "call out" mods come under more scrutiny than those who don't? They're human beings, Marty...it is going to happen.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 05:33 PM) I would argue the following: 1. There was no contract (and then list out every reason why the 4 elements were not met.) In the alternative: 2. There was a contract but no performance by Trump. 3. It was a unilateral contract and revoked prior to performance. etc. I would never say "It was a joke, he didnt mean it." I would use the exact quote: "suppose that perhaps DT had been the spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan... I hope its not true... but, unless he can offer proof, I'm willing to offer $5million dollars to Donald Trump." And argue that in no universe that can be interpreted as a contract. There is no clear offer, there is no way to accept, there is no meeting of the minds and there is no consideration. Its a hypothetical. I dont see why "joke" has to be involved. the only reason hed have to go down the "joke" route was if he had actually made a legitimate offer that could be accepted. As he did not, it would stupid to argue its a joke, because that lends credence to the idea that in some world that may have been an offer. But there is just no way a 3rd party can look at Maher's statement and come to the conclusion it was an offer. That is why Trump's attorney put in the nonsense about Trump's Obama bet, to try and argue that it was somehow prior course of dealing and therefore the terms were implied. Once again, it just shows how nonsensical this complaint is, because the course of dealing was between Obama and Trump. This lawsuit is a joke, but unfortunately its not funny and is a waste of court time and resources. I really hope that they sanction Trump, just to send a message. Courts arent for play time. I agree about the frivolousness of the complaint. To me, his comments suggest he might be willing to make an offer of a unilateral contract, but certainly not that he made one.

Link In 1999, John Leonard sued PepsiCo., attempting to get the company to hand over an AV-8 Harrier II jump jet. The advertised "offer" came in the form of a television commercial that showed the big prize for 7 million Pepsi points. Leonard had 15 points and attempted to send Pepsi a certified check for $700,000 -- 10 cents a point, per contest rules -- to cover the rest. Pepsi successfully argued that its advertisement was intended to be humorous. "Plaintiff's insistence that the commercial appears to be a serious offer requires the Court to explain why the commercial is funny," wrote a judge. "Explaining why a joke is funny is a daunting task; as the essayist E.B. White has remarked, 'Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process.' " Ultimately, Leonard was deemed to be a loser. As the judge wrote: "A reasonable viewer would understand such advertisements as mere puffery, not as statements of fact. … The Court rejects plaintiff's argument that the commercial was not clearly in jest."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 03:29 PM) Dave Schoenfield's (ESPN Blogger) take on the 2013 White Sox. Again, I agree.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 04:00 PM) So would anyone come and take a fingerprint off a door or do those just get wiped away? It seems like a no brainer to at least see if you can get an easy conviction and take someone off the streets for years by matching a print. Yeah, you make some strong points, that's for sure...my guess is they thought about these things when considering taking this measure, and with the full understanding of how their protocols actually work, and can account for them...but the police have done sillier things before, this is for certain.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 03:52 PM) You can take a statement over the phone or later. Maybe they meant responses to those would be very-low-priority, maybe not same-day. I think that's exactly what they meant...but let's be honest, in practice, it means if he's not still there, we're mostly likely not going to catch him...and we have no officers to waste right now.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 04:42 PM) Yeah, but you can state that on different grounds like, hey just because a judge enters a protective order doesn't mean you get an armed security team to follow you around. I was referring more to the 1970's Wash DC case, but yes, I agree.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 03:32 PM) Wow. Not a special relationship? Who the hell do they work for?!? You can see why they wouldn't want to establish that precedent though...the police would then be potentially liable for every failure to protect a citizen, and all their negligent actions would be called into question, etc, etc...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 03:22 PM) oh absolutely. and as I said earlier, that "cheapness" exists because the huge costs of carbon emissions aren't actually priced in. They are now in California!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 02:16 PM) Well, our coal and NG isn't really, right? Nope. We actually control our own electricity dependence fairly well right now...however, there are certainly plenty of other reasons to develop alternate energy sources now while we have cheap access to conventional sources.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 02:01 PM) Yup. I just compare that to the costs of Sandy + Katrina and say...well...that $200 billion would have been a great downpayment on it. I think the technology will get there...right now we have to do what you said...invest in upgrading the grid while the rest of the technology develops.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 01:23 PM) Somewhat...but the suns intensity starts declining after noon, while heat continues. ACs and heat often continue throughout the evening and through the night as well. The real problem is that you have to have something that can match the max capacity at each hour. If the sun has lost most of its intensity by 7 p.m. (say it's declined 90%), but power consumption has only declined 10%, then you have an 80% gap to make up. That gap will narrow as AC loads decrease, but your infrastructure has to be able to fill that entire gap at its largest point. Worse, it isn't a zero-sum game to turn a power plant on and off. A coal plant, for example, takes a lot of energy to heat up to the point where it can generate electricity. It's horribly inefficient to operate a plant like that for 3 hours a day. There are ways to do that. A smart nationwide grid could do it. Solar combined with integrated storage systems can do so. Combining solar and wind can help. Solar, Wind, and a small gas backup system, with planned storage...could do it...probably right now...but now you're back to talking about a major, national investment to pull it off. I'm not sure about that...it would take a hell of a lot of planned storage if that is the case. Wind and solar can literally stop at any second. If you've got a large percentage of your load served with an intermittent resource, you've got to be prepared to almost instantly replace that power with a conventional fuels resource. This means a modern natural gas plant, and it means a modern natural gas plant that is already online. A lot of work and money goes into keeping a modern natural gas plant running, even when it's at minimum capacity. Once you're already paying for the plant to be online, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense from an economic or reliability standpoint to keep it at minimum loads and serve a significant percentage of your load with intermittent resources.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 01:45 PM) Here's a summer version of the graph from Dallas, TX. Also worth noting...in a city, you also have to consider the urban heat island effect, so a city takes longer to cool off in the evening anyway. Yeah, I look at these graphs all day....there are some variations by season and geographic location, but generally that is what most areas load graph looks like.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 01:16 PM) aren't peak loads during the day, at least where solar is practical, because of A/C loads? Obviously this varies by season and location. For most locations, there is a peak in the morning when most people wake up and start stirring, businesses start opening, etc. Then the demand gradually rises as more people filter into work later in the day. Then in the early to late afternoon, demand generally drops off a bit as businesses start closing and people start heading home from school and work. Then usually around 5-7 pm there is another peak (the largest peak) where folks get home and begin cooking and watching tv and people head into bars and bowling alleys. As far as I know, as a general rule, almost everyone has their highest demand during the evening peak.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 01:45 PM) The biggest problem with Solar continues to be that it's not a baseload power source. If you can use the solar power immediately, in much of the country it's actually cheaper per KWH than coal to generate...but it doesn't always work. There's no great storage capacity, clouds do happen, and there's a requirement to continue having power generated during the evening after the sun has gone down...all of which require additional infrastructure...and that infrastructure is where the cost is. It also provides incredibly challenging issues in ramping other energy sources to meet load demand...the sun tends to go down right when demand is rapidly increasing, which means your conventional resources not only have to meet the increased demand, but also make up for the dropoff from intermittent resources. Coordinating all these things inevitably increases the cost to serve when utilizing large quantities of intermittent resources.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 11:56 AM) do it when it's warm enough to still grill outside Or find a very good contractor with a legal problem that you can barter with